A meta-analysis comparing the performance of narrowband CE-Chirp and 500 Hz tone burst stimuli in recording cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP).

Due to contradictory outcomes in the literature, the aim of this meta-analysis is to verify whether the narrowband (NB) CE-Chirp stimulus (centred at 500 Hz) would produce more robust cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) responses relative to the conventional 500 Hz tone burst. The literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and the terms used were "vestibular evoked myogenic potential" and "chirp". The cVEMP parameters to be analysed were P1 latency, N1 latency, and P1-N1 amplitude. A total of 59 potential articles were obtained from the database search. Eventually, five articles were found to be eligible for the meta-analysis (with n = 222). As found, P1 and N1 latencies of cVEMP were significantly shorter for the chirp stimulus (p < 0.001), with substantially large effect sizes. On the other hand, P1-N1 amplitude values were found to be not statistically different between the two stimuli (p = 0.189), with a small effect size. It appears that there is no indication to support the superiority of the NB CE-Chirp stimulus (centred at 500 Hz) in the cVEMP testing (relative to the conventional 500 Hz tone burst). In particular, both stimuli produce comparable P1-N1 amplitude values. Even though P1 and N1 latencies are statistically shorter for the chirp stimulus, this may not reflect that it should be the preferred stimulus for recording cVEMP responses (and the reasons for this are discussed accordingly).

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Individuals With Hearing Loss and Audiology Practice in a Developing Country.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the challenges faced by individuals with hearing loss at a time when many nations were attempting to move from the COVID-19 pandemic to endemic. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was conducted on Malaysian adults with hearing loss to determine the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on hearing aid management, communication difficulties, psychosocial challenges, and access to audiological services. STUDY SAMPLE: One hundred forty-six individuals aged 18 years old and above with hearing loss were recruited from hearing health care centers to participate in the survey. RESULTS: Many of the participants (54.2%) reported significant difficulties communicating with people wearing face masks. For hearing aid management, repairing (36.3%) and fine-tuning devices (30.2%) were considered more challenging than obtaining a battery (21.3%). The COVID-19 pandemic had a serious psychosocial impact on a small portion of the individuals surveyed. Remote services were rarely offered by the audiologists, and most participants preferred in-person treatment. However, the majority perceived that creating awareness and training on telehealth was important. CONCLUSIONS: Effective management for people with hearing loss needs to consider the challenges faced by them, as the world prepares to live with the coronavirus. Clinical protocols should consider providing a service that is helpful for the clients as well as safe and sustainable in future pandemics.